GR L 4399; (March, 1908) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4399
BENITO LEGARDA, petitioner-appellees, vs. S.L.P. ROCHA Y RUIZDELGADO, ET AL., respondents-appellants.
March 20, 1908
—
FACTS:
In 1880, Don Lorenzo Rocha, with the knowledge and consent of all owners of the Nagtahan hacienda, took possession of a parcel of land within it. He erected buildings on the land costing over 12,000 pesos. His son, Don Santiago Lorenzo Pedro Rocha y Ruizdelgado (respondent), claims a perpetual right to occupy this land, in the nature of a censos enfiteutico (emphyteutic census), upon payment of an annual sum of 20 pesos. The arrangement for this occupation was never put into a public or private writing. The only written evidence consists of receipts for annual payments, where the word “canon” was used in earlier ones, and “rent” in the margin of some later ones. The petitioner, Benito Legarda, sought to register title to the land.
ISSUE:
Whether the occupation of the land by the respondent was in the nature of a censos enfiteutico, which would grant a perpetual right, or merely an annual lease/rental.
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled that the occupation was not a censos enfiteutico but rather an annual lease or rental.
The Court held that the use of the word “canon” in the receipts was insufficient to establish a perpetual right like a censos enfiteutico. The Court noted that such use, even if consistent, was too slight a foundation, especially when other circumstances were consistent with either a temporary or indeterminate occupation. It was also presented that “canon” was customarily used to describe rentals in large Philippine haciendas. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Spain has held that when the character of a payment for land use is not determined, it will be presumed to be a rental.
Crucially, in order to constitute a censos enfiteutico, there must be a public writing (Civil Code, art. 1628; Law 3, title 8, Partida 5). While commentators cited by the respondent suggested a public writing might not be essential for its existence, the Court, citing decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, affirmed that while a public document is not the only mode of proof, it is the only means of constituting such a right. Oral proof may only be received on the document as the foundation of the right.
Since there was no public writing establishing the censos enfiteutico, the respondent’s claim for a perpetual right based on it was denied. The judgment of the Court of Land Registration was affirmed.